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
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Meghan and Prince Harry set up court of advisers to give them sense of 'royalty' after Trump's election derailed her political ambitions
In January 2020 Harry left his UK royal home to meet up with Meghan and baby Archie, who had left for Canada two weeks earlier. He and Meghan didn't like the royal routine. They wanted to be free and do things their way, rather than follow the requests of their royal aides. A royal author even alleged that Meghan once said "it's not my job to coddle people" when confronted by a senior aide over her treatment of staff. Meanwhile royal aides accused Harry of 'breathtaking arrogance' after he claimed he wanted to 'protect' the Queen. Five years later Harry and Meghan now appear to have created their own royal household, and launched their own mini 'royal court' of staffers, all of whom white, to take on the demands, according to The Mail on Sunday. It won't be easy and their royal household is likely to take generations to create. It is also likely to be a cheap knock-off of the real thing. Even if Meghan tries to show she's more modern and suitable to be a royal than Princess Catherine. It's something I know Harry once suggested to the late Queen Elizabeth. It all sounds rather pointless as Meghan doesn't listen to advice - she believes she always knows best and that Harry only listens to her. Some staff might not last long. The motivation for setting up her own 'court' of advisors could be that with Donald Trump as US President she realises she has no chance to get a senior political role. So she might as well try for her own brand of royalty. Prince William will no doubt be irritated and angry should the Sussexes attempt to in any way surpass the Royal Family. He won't be happy either if they start using their HRH title, which they promised they wouldn't do back in 2020. One reason for all this is that Harry is furious that he has dropped down the royal list of popularity. Only 27 per cent of UK adults have a positive opinion of him, according to a recent YouGov poll – his worst rating in more than two years. Meghan's popularity has hit a record low of 20 per cent. Maybe, just maybe, he could stop being so unpleasant about his family. Instead, he seems to want the new staff to behave like the aides who raised him in Britain and make sure he and Meghan are well protected from the media he rages against. Shortly after relocating to California back in 2020, the Duke and Duchess vowed to never again deal with the British tabloids – taking an approach of 'zero engagement' except when absolutely necessary. At the time, the couple hit out at stories he felt were 'distorted' or 'invasive beyond reason'. It's an approach that has earned the couple no favours with the press over the past five years. Meghan is probably wishing they were a bit more willing to drum up publicity for the clothes and goodies she wants to sell. Regular journalists with opinions that might get under their skin weren't given access to their fake royal tours of Columbia and Nigeria on their fake royal trips. One magazine journalist, who had very restricted access, was the only one given that honour. It didn't do them much good. Harry felt 'trapped' in the Royal Family - a word he used when Oprah Winfrey interviewed them once they'd left and a word Harry used to put down Prince William and the then-Prince Charles. Could Meghan now expect people to bow or curtsy to her? She used to think it was ridiculous when she had to curtsy when she met the Queen for the first time. Might they even honour their visitors who have done what they were told with a gentle tap on the shoulder with a sword? An American has just written to me that Harry and Megan setting up a royal court within the United States will be a 'problem for the American Government, who have never wanted English royals trying to be in control'. Angela Levin is an award-winning British journalist and royal biographer. Her biography Harry: Conversations with the Prince was published in 2018. Her work has been commended twice at the British Press Awards.
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Aussie horror twins return with the mother of all evil
Bring Her Back MA15+, 104 minutes 3 stars The Australian Philippou twins - Michael and Danny - burst onto the horror scene with Talk to Me (2022). It was a well-made and vivid movie, by no means just a gory frightfest, in which dealing with death and grief played a big part. This movie - like the first, written by Danny Philippou with Bill Hinzman - has some similar themes but the story is quite different. The horror is far from being just supernatural and all the more unnerving for it. Bring Her Back is aiming to run emotionally deeper than its predecessor did and, while I had some reservations, it's an impressive achievement. There's a prologue in which some kind of bizarre, possibly occult, ritual is being undertaken. There will be more about that later. Then we move into a seemingly more mundane, if tragic, situation. After the death of their father, Andy (Billy Barratt) and his sight-impaired younger stepsister Piper (Sora Wong) are going to be separated in foster care: Andy's troubled past makes him hard to place. But he pleads with their caseworker Wendy (Sally-Anne Upton) not to split them up as he turns 18 in three months and will take on Piper's guardianship then. He gets his way, but had he known what was in store he might have reconsidered. British actress Sally Hawkins plays Laura, their foster mother. While casting a foreign performer in an Australian movie often feels like a bid for international appeal, Hawkins is brilliant in the role. Among other roles, she played Mrs Brown in the first two Paddington movies but she's a very different kind of mother here. It doesn't take long to feel there is something a bit off about Laura, who lives in a house out of town. While at first glance she seems cheerful and slightly eccentric, it doesn't take long before cracks appear in the veneer, revealing something more than unpleasant underneath. Laura fusses and fawns over Piper but treats Andy in a far more perfunctory way. She's aggressively nosy, not just politely curious, and some of her behaviour is worse than inappropriate. It's creepily fascinating and more than a little uncomfortable to watch. And who is that strange, bald little boy with the haunting eyes who's standing in the middle of the unfilled pool in the backyard? Oh, that's Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips), Laura explains, another of her kids. He's selectively mute. Oh, and he's not allowed out, so he's locked in his room when nobody else is home. Nothing to worry about. The film could just about have forgone the supernatural elements - which aren't explained in exhaustive detail - and worked as a dark thriller about obsession and loss and the extremes to which people will go when devastated. But the spooky elements, not overexplained, add their own frissons and we get more than enough to know that something is very, very wrong. The kids are not there out of the goodness of Laura's heart. Barratt and Wong make you care about the step-siblings and their relationship and you don't want anything bad to happen to them. But given this is a horror movie, the chances are high that something will. Wren Phillips is a haunting and disturbing presence and he and his character undergo a lot. The production design and cinematography are excellent, as are the sometimes gross visual and practical effects (consider yourself warned). Flaws? Well, there's a big information dump towards the end of the movie and a couple of credibility gaps: a mobile phone that's always open so anyone can access the contents (and an owner who takes no security measures) and characters who put up with far more than seems credible before taking any action. Others won't be as fussed as I was about much of this and, regardless, the film is definitely worth seeing. It will be interesting to see what the Philippous come up with next. Bring Her Back MA15+, 104 minutes 3 stars The Australian Philippou twins - Michael and Danny - burst onto the horror scene with Talk to Me (2022). It was a well-made and vivid movie, by no means just a gory frightfest, in which dealing with death and grief played a big part. This movie - like the first, written by Danny Philippou with Bill Hinzman - has some similar themes but the story is quite different. The horror is far from being just supernatural and all the more unnerving for it. Bring Her Back is aiming to run emotionally deeper than its predecessor did and, while I had some reservations, it's an impressive achievement. There's a prologue in which some kind of bizarre, possibly occult, ritual is being undertaken. There will be more about that later. Then we move into a seemingly more mundane, if tragic, situation. After the death of their father, Andy (Billy Barratt) and his sight-impaired younger stepsister Piper (Sora Wong) are going to be separated in foster care: Andy's troubled past makes him hard to place. But he pleads with their caseworker Wendy (Sally-Anne Upton) not to split them up as he turns 18 in three months and will take on Piper's guardianship then. He gets his way, but had he known what was in store he might have reconsidered. British actress Sally Hawkins plays Laura, their foster mother. While casting a foreign performer in an Australian movie often feels like a bid for international appeal, Hawkins is brilliant in the role. Among other roles, she played Mrs Brown in the first two Paddington movies but she's a very different kind of mother here. It doesn't take long to feel there is something a bit off about Laura, who lives in a house out of town. While at first glance she seems cheerful and slightly eccentric, it doesn't take long before cracks appear in the veneer, revealing something more than unpleasant underneath. Laura fusses and fawns over Piper but treats Andy in a far more perfunctory way. She's aggressively nosy, not just politely curious, and some of her behaviour is worse than inappropriate. It's creepily fascinating and more than a little uncomfortable to watch. And who is that strange, bald little boy with the haunting eyes who's standing in the middle of the unfilled pool in the backyard? Oh, that's Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips), Laura explains, another of her kids. He's selectively mute. Oh, and he's not allowed out, so he's locked in his room when nobody else is home. Nothing to worry about. The film could just about have forgone the supernatural elements - which aren't explained in exhaustive detail - and worked as a dark thriller about obsession and loss and the extremes to which people will go when devastated. But the spooky elements, not overexplained, add their own frissons and we get more than enough to know that something is very, very wrong. The kids are not there out of the goodness of Laura's heart. Barratt and Wong make you care about the step-siblings and their relationship and you don't want anything bad to happen to them. But given this is a horror movie, the chances are high that something will. Wren Phillips is a haunting and disturbing presence and he and his character undergo a lot. The production design and cinematography are excellent, as are the sometimes gross visual and practical effects (consider yourself warned). Flaws? Well, there's a big information dump towards the end of the movie and a couple of credibility gaps: a mobile phone that's always open so anyone can access the contents (and an owner who takes no security measures) and characters who put up with far more than seems credible before taking any action. Others won't be as fussed as I was about much of this and, regardless, the film is definitely worth seeing. It will be interesting to see what the Philippous come up with next. Bring Her Back MA15+, 104 minutes 3 stars The Australian Philippou twins - Michael and Danny - burst onto the horror scene with Talk to Me (2022). It was a well-made and vivid movie, by no means just a gory frightfest, in which dealing with death and grief played a big part. This movie - like the first, written by Danny Philippou with Bill Hinzman - has some similar themes but the story is quite different. The horror is far from being just supernatural and all the more unnerving for it. Bring Her Back is aiming to run emotionally deeper than its predecessor did and, while I had some reservations, it's an impressive achievement. There's a prologue in which some kind of bizarre, possibly occult, ritual is being undertaken. There will be more about that later. Then we move into a seemingly more mundane, if tragic, situation. After the death of their father, Andy (Billy Barratt) and his sight-impaired younger stepsister Piper (Sora Wong) are going to be separated in foster care: Andy's troubled past makes him hard to place. But he pleads with their caseworker Wendy (Sally-Anne Upton) not to split them up as he turns 18 in three months and will take on Piper's guardianship then. He gets his way, but had he known what was in store he might have reconsidered. British actress Sally Hawkins plays Laura, their foster mother. While casting a foreign performer in an Australian movie often feels like a bid for international appeal, Hawkins is brilliant in the role. Among other roles, she played Mrs Brown in the first two Paddington movies but she's a very different kind of mother here. It doesn't take long to feel there is something a bit off about Laura, who lives in a house out of town. While at first glance she seems cheerful and slightly eccentric, it doesn't take long before cracks appear in the veneer, revealing something more than unpleasant underneath. Laura fusses and fawns over Piper but treats Andy in a far more perfunctory way. She's aggressively nosy, not just politely curious, and some of her behaviour is worse than inappropriate. It's creepily fascinating and more than a little uncomfortable to watch. And who is that strange, bald little boy with the haunting eyes who's standing in the middle of the unfilled pool in the backyard? Oh, that's Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips), Laura explains, another of her kids. He's selectively mute. Oh, and he's not allowed out, so he's locked in his room when nobody else is home. Nothing to worry about. The film could just about have forgone the supernatural elements - which aren't explained in exhaustive detail - and worked as a dark thriller about obsession and loss and the extremes to which people will go when devastated. But the spooky elements, not overexplained, add their own frissons and we get more than enough to know that something is very, very wrong. The kids are not there out of the goodness of Laura's heart. Barratt and Wong make you care about the step-siblings and their relationship and you don't want anything bad to happen to them. But given this is a horror movie, the chances are high that something will. Wren Phillips is a haunting and disturbing presence and he and his character undergo a lot. The production design and cinematography are excellent, as are the sometimes gross visual and practical effects (consider yourself warned). Flaws? Well, there's a big information dump towards the end of the movie and a couple of credibility gaps: a mobile phone that's always open so anyone can access the contents (and an owner who takes no security measures) and characters who put up with far more than seems credible before taking any action. Others won't be as fussed as I was about much of this and, regardless, the film is definitely worth seeing. It will be interesting to see what the Philippous come up with next. Bring Her Back MA15+, 104 minutes 3 stars The Australian Philippou twins - Michael and Danny - burst onto the horror scene with Talk to Me (2022). It was a well-made and vivid movie, by no means just a gory frightfest, in which dealing with death and grief played a big part. This movie - like the first, written by Danny Philippou with Bill Hinzman - has some similar themes but the story is quite different. The horror is far from being just supernatural and all the more unnerving for it. Bring Her Back is aiming to run emotionally deeper than its predecessor did and, while I had some reservations, it's an impressive achievement. There's a prologue in which some kind of bizarre, possibly occult, ritual is being undertaken. There will be more about that later. Then we move into a seemingly more mundane, if tragic, situation. After the death of their father, Andy (Billy Barratt) and his sight-impaired younger stepsister Piper (Sora Wong) are going to be separated in foster care: Andy's troubled past makes him hard to place. But he pleads with their caseworker Wendy (Sally-Anne Upton) not to split them up as he turns 18 in three months and will take on Piper's guardianship then. He gets his way, but had he known what was in store he might have reconsidered. British actress Sally Hawkins plays Laura, their foster mother. While casting a foreign performer in an Australian movie often feels like a bid for international appeal, Hawkins is brilliant in the role. Among other roles, she played Mrs Brown in the first two Paddington movies but she's a very different kind of mother here. It doesn't take long to feel there is something a bit off about Laura, who lives in a house out of town. While at first glance she seems cheerful and slightly eccentric, it doesn't take long before cracks appear in the veneer, revealing something more than unpleasant underneath. Laura fusses and fawns over Piper but treats Andy in a far more perfunctory way. She's aggressively nosy, not just politely curious, and some of her behaviour is worse than inappropriate. It's creepily fascinating and more than a little uncomfortable to watch. And who is that strange, bald little boy with the haunting eyes who's standing in the middle of the unfilled pool in the backyard? Oh, that's Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips), Laura explains, another of her kids. He's selectively mute. Oh, and he's not allowed out, so he's locked in his room when nobody else is home. Nothing to worry about. The film could just about have forgone the supernatural elements - which aren't explained in exhaustive detail - and worked as a dark thriller about obsession and loss and the extremes to which people will go when devastated. But the spooky elements, not overexplained, add their own frissons and we get more than enough to know that something is very, very wrong. The kids are not there out of the goodness of Laura's heart. Barratt and Wong make you care about the step-siblings and their relationship and you don't want anything bad to happen to them. But given this is a horror movie, the chances are high that something will. Wren Phillips is a haunting and disturbing presence and he and his character undergo a lot. The production design and cinematography are excellent, as are the sometimes gross visual and practical effects (consider yourself warned). Flaws? Well, there's a big information dump towards the end of the movie and a couple of credibility gaps: a mobile phone that's always open so anyone can access the contents (and an owner who takes no security measures) and characters who put up with far more than seems credible before taking any action. Others won't be as fussed as I was about much of this and, regardless, the film is definitely worth seeing. It will be interesting to see what the Philippous come up with next.
Perth Now
14 hours ago
- Perth Now
Radiohead singer Thom Yorke says AI does nothing more than steal from human artistic expression
Radiohead's Thom Yorke says artificial intelligence does nothing more than "steal" from original human artistic work. The 56-year-old songwriter – who has just released his first full-length electronic album 'Tall Tales', a collaboration with Mark Pritchard – is against the onslaught of AI in the music business and other creative industries. Thom insists the technology is stealing musicians' ideas with no financial reimbursement. Speaking to Electronic Sound magazine, Thom said: 'As far as I can tell in music and art and all creative industries, Al is so far only able to 'create' variations on genuine human artistic expression, and those are obvious. Is Al capable of genuine original creative thought? I have yet to see that. It analyses and steals and builds iterations without acknowledging the original human work it analysed. It creates pallid facsimiles, which is useful in the same way auto-accompaniment is useful, or a screensaver of a beautiful natural landscape in a billionaire's bunker is. "But the economic structure is morally wrong ... the human work used by AI to fake its creativity is not being acknowledged. Writers are not paid. It's a weird kind of wanky, tech-bro nightmare future, and it seems this is what the tech industry does best. A devaluing of the rest of humanity, other than themselves, hidden behind tech. In the US right now, we are witnessing this spilling over into politics. 'We are. in modern parlance. 'creatives. which is a term I find deeply offensive because it arrived around the time that art morphed into 'content' for devices.' Yorke - who also fronts The Smile - was one of 10,500 signatories, which also included Abba's Björn Ulvaeus, actress Julianne Moore, The Cure's Robert Smith and Rosario Dawson, from the creative industries warning artificial intelligence companies that unlicensed use of their work is a 'major, unjust threat' to artists' livelihoods. The statement read: "The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted." The organiser of the statement was the British composer and former AI executive Ed Newton-Rex, who resigned from his role as head of audio at tech firm Stability AI last year due to a disagreement with the higher-ups that that taking copyrighted content to train AI models without a licence constitutes 'fair use', a term meaning permission from the copyright owner is not needed."
