So, the street artist Banksy recently produced one of his trademark bits of graffiti on the side of a building in England. The work of art featured five drab pigeons holding signs telling migrants that they were not welcome in the country. To their right was a lone migratory swallow: green, colorful, lovely. English authorities decided that the work of art was racist—despite the obvious, obvious intent of the artist to portray the anti-immigration crowd as out-of-touch bigots trying to keep something beautiful out of the country.
So they erased the art.
Let's skip the debate over immigration for a moment (I'm by no means an expert in UK politics and immigration is an even hotter issue over there than it is across the pond) and instead focus on the fact that government-funded philistines destroyed a piece of art that was likely worth in the high-six-figure, low-seven-figures range on the open market. Why? Because of political correctness. Because they were afraid someone would see it and it would hurt their feelings. Because artistic expression—freedom of expression period, really—means nothing when the feels are on the line.
To be honest, I don't even find that the most chilling part of the story.* No. This comment was far more disturbing to me:
Nigel Brown, communications manager for Tendring district council, said it had received a complaint on Tuesday that "offensive and racist remarks" had been painted on a seafront building. ...
"We would obviously welcome an appropriate Banksy original on any of our seafronts and would be delighted if he returned in the future."
Ah! Well then. The government is fine with an "appropriate" piece of artwork. A piece of art that a group of functionaries can stand around and judge for its possible offensiveness. I can just see them standing their, poking berries up their nose, angrily striking out the problematic bits. "Ooh, what about this group, or that? Wouldn't want to make them so very upset. Best you strike this line, that drawing, this note. Don't want to offend, after all." Leaving artistic merit up to a band of bureaucrats with no aesthetic sensibilities strikes me as an eminently reasonable thing to have happen.
How utterly absurd.
And, sadly, utterly unsurprising.
*Banksy's 'art' has never really done much for me. Now, if you could get off my lawn, I've got some cable news programs to yell at.