On 21 April the Gallery NoD in Prague was supposed to open the exhibition by Polish artist, Peter Fuss. The exposition titled “Achtung!” was composed of super-size screen prints taken from Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List and Roman Polanski’s The Pianist and then digitally edited. The Wermaht soldiers were not wearing swastikas but the Star of David on their sleeves. According to the artist the aim of the exhibition was to draw attention to barbarous methods employed by the Jews in their conflict with the Palestinians, parallel to the methods used on the Jews in the Second World War. The pictures were on the walls for 30 minutes before the opening of the exhibition and then were devastated by the members of the Jewish community in Prague.

The interview with Peter Fuss conducted by Indeks 73 after closing down the exhibition “Achtung!” in the experimental gallery Roxy/ NoD in Prague.

Lidia Makowska – It's not the first time you have stirred up a hornet's nest as far as Holocaust and antisemitism is concerned. The commotion caused by your exhibition “Jesus Christ King of Poland” at Scena Gallery in Koszalin accelerated our attempts to create Indeks 73 Initiative.

Peter Fuss – I didn't know that. But I'm glad my actions bring such effects.

L.M. - In Koszalin you presented print screens taken from the Fronda internet forum, fragments of the Radio Maryja programme and the list of 2000 “Jews and people of Jewish descent” published on the website Polonica.net. Additionally, you put up the billboard with portraits of the people from the list and a slogan „Żydzi won z katolickiego kraju” (Jews, out from the Catholic country). What's the epilogue of this action? Have you been taken to court?

P.F. - The prosecutor reacted really fast. The billboard was pulled down and the prosecutor initiated legal proceedings. The curators of Scena Gallery, Robert Knuth and Ryszard Ziarkiewicz were summoned as witnesses. They were threatened with charges, which would be totally absurd. That project was composed of two parts: things happening at the gallery and outside the gallery.

L.M. - Yes, it's your strategy of the city guerilla.

P.F. – It was my entirely independent action. I hadn't consulted the billboard with anybody, I hadn't asked anybody for permission. The curators shouldn't have been burdened with the responsibility. Yet, they had problems mostly due to the actions of the local authorities, who wanted to close down the gallery. As far as the prosecutor is concerned, he got really confused. At first, he took legal actions on the basis of the paragraph banning the insults of the president, as Lech Kaczynski's portrait was on the billboard. Then, thanks to professor Bartoszewski's opinion that calling someone a Jew is not an insult, the prosecutor changed the charges into a call of racist hatred. I don't know the epilogue of the case. Probably it's been discontinued.

L.M. - Have you personally been asked to attend a police interrogation?

P.F. – The police tried to invite me to such an interrogation, yet, due to the fact I didn't live in Poland at that time our contacts faded away.

L.M. - And what happened to the exhibition?

P.F. – The prosecutor closed it down the next day after the opening. The Gallery was sealed, the prints were removed from the Gallery and taken to the police station as evidence. The billboard was up in the city only for three or four hours.

L.M. - Did you get used to the fact your works disappear from the city space so quickly?

P.F. – Yes, and I'm not devastated because of that.

L.M. - So what was the reason of your presentation „Achtung!”at the Roxy NoD Gallery in Prague? You could have predicted that the pictures of the Nazis wearing the star of David on their sleeves would incite indignation and radical reactions.


P.F. - I expected radical reactions and a possibility of closing the exhibition due to the protests of the Jewish community. What I didn't expect, however, was the way it all happened. I thought the time of armed gangs destroying works of art and burning politically incorrect books was over. I also expected criticism from those who had defended me at the time of commotion around „Jesus Christ King of Poland”. I knew people who had supported me when I had been criticising antisemitism would probably stop liking me now. Yet I'd be an opportunist if I criticised only antisemitism and ignored other manifestations of racial discrimination. Especially those coming from the Jews.

L.M. – Who invited you to Prague?

P.F. – Milan Mikulastik, one of the Roxy NoD curators and a member of the Guma Guar group.

L.M. – Did you show him the project of the exhibition? Did he know what you were planning?

P.F. – I prepared the project and went to Prague. The curator examined the project and said there could be a problem, as the Gallery was rented from the Jewish community. Yet we decided that the Gallery was a closed space and the owner wouldn't influence its programme. What's more, the NoD Gallery specialised in political and experimental exhibitions. The curator assumed that in case of any protests we would be allowed to discuss the exhibition in a civilised way.

Agnieszka Kaim – You've been criticised for not being at the launch of the exhibition and the fact you didn't even try to make your message clear. Did anybody else try to do it? I only saw the pictures of the Jewish community members devastating the exhibition. What had happened before?

P.F. – I never attend the launches of my exhibitions, like many other artists. Some artist don't even give interviews or comment their works in any way. When the scandal broke out I was ready to meet the members of the Jewish community and discuss the exhibition, but the Foundation managing the Gallery had a different idea of solving the problem. The spectators of the exhibition could read my interview, in which I explained in all details my point of view. The curator was also prepared to talk about my works at the launch, but they didn't want to listen.

L.M. – Who do you mean by 'they'?

P.F. – Initially, there were two men and one woman from the Jewish community.

L.M. – Just after the launch started?

P.F. – Actually, before. The curator was just about to open the exposition.

A.K. - Which means the works were devastated before the official opening?

P.F. – The launch was planned to start at 6 p.m.. About 6.30 everything was destroyed. There wasn't any 'official' opening. Spectators were still coming. Some were sitting in a nearby cafe. When the first media arrived the works had been already torn down. Those first three people from the Jewish community who entered the gallery immediately started to shout and rip off the works from the wall, delicately at the beginning. The curator tried to talk to them, but his attempts were ignored. Milan Kozelka, Czech artist of Jewish descent, who was present at the launch, also tried to defend the works. Later on, indignant at the behaviour of the Jewish community members he wrote letters to media. Meanwhile, more community members appeared: the rabbi, the building administrator and a man who started to set his dog on people. They became aggressive and devastation started. My works were torn and stamped on, the aggressors threatened to set fire to the gallery. The men took off their kippahs and tucked their shirts in trousers, as if they didn't want to show they were Jews at the moment of devastating the works. They started to pull people and ask them who the author of the exhibition was. When they learnt the author was Polish they used words: 'Polish swines' in Czech and German.

L.M. – Polnische Schweine?

P.F. – Yes.



L.M. – So we can assume that Milan, the curator, was simply assaulted.

P.F. – He was called right away a 'Czech left-wing whore' and nobody even wanted to talk to him. Milan Kozelka, the artist who still remembers communist censorship, was truly indignant at this act of violence. He thought it couldn't be justified at any rate. The Jewish community threatened to terminate the gallery rental agreement. The NoD Gallery is a part of a big cultural centre Roxy, which also includes a theatre and a cafe. For 10 years it's been a cult venue in Prague. If the centre was closed people would strongly protest. In my opinion only a fear of such protests and a discussion in media saved the gallery.

L.M. – Did anybody postulate to close the gallery because of your exhibition?

P.F. – During the devastation the owners of the building threatened to terminate the rental agreement of the whole centre – the gallery, club and theatre.

L.M. – You nearly destroyed an experimental open space for presenting art in Prague!

P.F. – I wouldn't have destroyed it, I would have proved where the borders of freedom were and who marked them out. Actually, this whole fuss about “Achtung!” points this out. The Czechs boast of their freedom, of the fact that the Catholic Church isn't inviolable there, and that topics such as abortion exist in an open public debate. They pride themselves on their ability to discuss openly all subjects and on their tolerant attitude. And suddenly, it turns out there is a topic they cannot touch upon, that in the building rented from the Jews one cannot speak of everything, especially of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the threat of repression the aggressors demanded to control the programme of the gallery and to consult the subjects of future exhibitions. Not only did they tear off the works from the walls, they also packed them up and took them away to make sure they wouldn't be put up again.

L.M. – Did the curator try to save the works from destruction?

P.F. – At first he tried to talk to them, but this didn't work. What else could he do? Fight with them? When this man brought the dog, the situation got really heated. People were scared. The next day the Foundation which manages the gallery and rents the building from the Jewish community decided to hush up the situation. They wrote a letter, in which they apologised the Jewish community, and promised they would consult the future artistic projects with them.

L.M. - The information about your exhibition was removed from thr Roxy NoD website.

P.F. - Actually, they blocked the information on all activities on 21 April, including a concert. The next day one of the main Czech newspapers put on its website the article according to which it wasn't the Jews that had attacked the exhibition, only a group of bruisers hired by me supposedly as a part of my project. The exhibition was branded antisemitic, and hiring the bruisers was considered a part of my clever plan to put all the blame on the Jews. I was called perfidious, cunning and full of hatred towards the Jewish nation. Yet this explanation didn't stand a test, as there had been spectators at the gallery at the time of the incident who had recognised particular people taking part in devastation, including the rabbi. So the article kept changing with time and the internauts' commentaries. A similar thing happened to me in Gazeta Wyborcza after I'd put up the billboard „Żydzi won z katolickiego kraju” (Jews, out from the Catholic country). First I was accused of antisemitism, then the text changed a couple of times.

L.M. – We observed this kind of process in the case of censoring David Černy's “Entropa” presented in Brussels. On the opening day Minister Vondra said how important to him was freedom of art and why he had invited this artist...

A.K. – Not the artist, but 28 artists.

L.M. – Exactly. He said the invited artists were controversial but there was no room for censorship in Europe. Without verifying this information Gazeta Wyborcza announced that Poland had been represented by Leszek Hirszenberg. In Indeks 73 we started to wonder who Leszek Hirszenberg was. The right-winged forum filled with comments that Poland was represented again by the Jew. Only the next day Gazeta Wyborcza discovered Černy's hoax. They hired Mariusz Szczygieł to save the situation, they published a few articles about the “Czech restless soul” and Černy.

P.F. – It happens quite frequently in media.

L.M. – This exmaple shows contemporary mechanisms of creating and disseminating information. The same cliches are repeated. It didn't occur to anybody that Leszek Hirszenberg was a hoax.

A.K. – That's why when it came to your exhibition people thought it was a hoax, too.

P.F. – It wasn't people, it was the author who thought it was a hoax. The article seemed to be written with a set thesis, as if ordered by someone. There was a quote from the representative of the Jewish community who accused me of antisemitism. Neither I nor the curator was asked to comment on the case, which would be required according to journalistic ethics and standards.

L.M. – But officially you weren't there. Back to the incident in Prague: what was the epilogue of the whole affair? What was the curator's reaction?

P.F. – He was waiting. To tell you the truth he thought of calling the police, but eventually he didn't do it. I understand him, he didn't want to escalate the conflict. After all the incident involved the owner of the building who threatened to terminate the rental agreement of the gallery, theatre, cafe, which would result in redundancies and the cult club would cease to exist.

L.M. – If I had been the curator I wouldn't have called the police either, as I don't believe in efficiency of the state and effectiveness of the repression methods.

A.K. – I think it's not that. If, for example, a group of drunk people had dropped by and started to devastate the gallery and there hadn't been this ideological context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the police would probably have been called. It's not about a lack of faith in the state's efficiency, but the fact the exhibition was devastated by specific people.

P.F. – Exactly.



L.M. – The Czechs have got their Černy, a provocator in art, who they're proud of. They're proud of the fact he's stirred up the hornet's nest and everybody discusses it, yet you come to Prague and you stirred up the hornet's nest and...

P.F. – As you can see I stirred up not the right nest... In fact there were two coincidences. Before I came to Prague I didn't know the building belonged to the Jewish community. What is more, 21 April, the day of the launch of the exhibition, was the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It was coincidence as well, as it was the only available date in the gallery in April. Taking this date into account I cancelled a part of the project, which was supposed to take place in the public space, so that nobody would see my works by accident. Yet, the gallery is a closed place, so I decided to show the exhibition, regardless of this particular date. I understand somebody could have felt offended and had a right to protest, but this should be done in a civilised way.

L.M. - But you weren't there, so who the rabbi or the members of the Jewish community were supposed to talk to?

P.F. – But it wasn't a discussion panel or a conference. I hadn't arranged a meeting with anybody. There was the curator at the gallery, he was the one to talk to. If they had wanted the exhibition to be closed, there had been other methods: negotiations with the Foundation, formal appeals. Yet they chose to use force.

L.M. – Zbyszek Libera was present at your exhibition in Prague. He informed Indeks 73 he'd left the gallery before devastation as he hadn't wanted to defend you works. He thinks you didn't consider your project well, and your attitude was irresponsible. You should have explained your intentions personally and talked to the rabbi face to face.

P.F. – Libera has a right to express his opinions. It all depends on the limits. For some the impassable border is when you edit the archive picture presenting the Nazis crossing the Polish border and put there smiling cyclists instead. For others the limit will be crossed when the Auschwitz prisoners are presented as happy sanatorium guests, or when you build a concentration camp with Lego blocks. For them such actions would be irresponsible and ill-considered. So are my actions for Mr Libera. I'm not going to argue. After I presented my billboard „Żydzi won z katolickiego kraju” one of the main journalists of “Obieg” attacked my project from his superior and arbitrary point of view and stated one couldn't use such strong words in art. Time has verified this opinion. After two years nobody takes such opinions seriously. The same thing is going to happen to my project „Achtung!” - it will be verified with time, too. As far as my absence at the exhibition is concerned, well, I'm not obliged to attend the launches and explain my intentions personally. Any objections referring to this situation are silly. I was ready to talk face to face to the rabbi and the Jewish community representatives who felt offended with my works after the launch. What if they had come the following day? Was I supposed to stay at the gallery for the whole duration of the exhibition to explain it?

L.M. - Last year Indeks 73 commented widely the case of censorship - the removal of Hubert Czerepok's work in Wrocław. His installation presented within the frames of the Survival Festival - an iron band saying 'Nie tylko dobro pochodzi z góry' (Not only good comes from above) - in its form resembled the infamous inscription 'Arbeit macht frei'. The rabbi of the Jewish community in Wrocław felt offended and demanded to remove the installation. He also refused to discuss the project during the Festival. Only after a couple of months Indeks 73 managed to convince the rabbi to talk about the exhibition. We sat around the table at the BWA in Wrocław and the rabbi told us how painful the installation was for him and other members of the Jewish community. We didn't expect such a story, our generation doesn't know how to talk about the trauma of the Holocaust. But we need to talk. So the conclusion of our debate in Wrocław was that nobody owned exclusive rights to Holocaust and everybody had a right to go back to this tragedy and cope with it in their own way.

A.K. – The rabbi from Wrocław didn't force his arguments, he was more focused on emotions – he simply didn't want Auschwitz prisoners to walk under this inscription on the way to the synagogue. He stressed he wouldn't have minded if the installation had been presented at the gallery.

P.F. – The memory of the Holocaust and awareness of the unimaginable tragedy of the Jewish nation cannot prevent us from criticising current actions of Israel. Anyone who criticises Israel's actions is usually accused of antisemitism, which ends all discussions. The Jews hold a grudge against the world for not reacting strongly enough to the crimes of the Second World War, yet at the same time they demand that we should ignore the methods they employ in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Invited to the international conference on genocide, which took place in 2004 in Stockholm, Israel agreed to participate on condition the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not discussed. At the exhibition accompanying the conference a couple of Swedish artists, Mrs and Mr Feiler, showed the installation „Snow White and the madness of truth” critical towards the Israeli politics. The ambassador of Israel present at the opening of the exhibition destroyed the installation, for which he was congratulated on by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister at that time. The Israeli government oficially demanded to close the exhibition and remove the installation. The Director of Stockholm's National Antiquities Museum where the exhibition was taking place was threatened with death. Despite this, the exhibition continued as planned.

L.M. - Did your exhibition cause any repercussions?

P.F. - The curator was afraid that in the best case he was going to lose his job, and in the worst case the whole cultural complex would be closed down. This, however, didn't happen, but the rental agreement will now include the clause which will successfully obstruct such exhibitions in the future.

L.M. – Your statement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has caused a stream of censorship. A bad parent got a guardian – freedom of artistic expression at the NoD gallery got under guardianship of the Jewish community.

P.F. – It looks like it.

L.M. – You've stirred a heated discussion on the front pages of important Czech papers in Czech media. It is really something. I don't know if Polish media would get involved in this subject. I scanned the websites of the Czech media and as far as I understood the Czech society had been polarised. There have been questions if one could compare the war in Gaza to Holocaust, or if one could simply destroy an artist's work which was against one's opinion.

P.F. – I'm glad my exhibition provoked questions and discussions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The worst thing we can do is to be silent. I don't equal the conflict in Gaza and Holocaust. It's not about outdoing one another as far as number of victims is concerned. I just want to show that the methods are often similar. We cannot justify crimes only because they are comperatively and statistically smaller. This exhibition points out that racial segregation and the nazi's methods can never be excused. The true picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is distorted already on the language level. It is said it's not the civilians that are killed, but the terrorists. People are aware of the fact there is some kind of wall, but they aren't able to see it as a ghetto wall and state that each ghetto wall is wrong and can't be accepted. The Jew is generally associated with a victim. It's hard to accept the fact that the Jew has nowadays become an executioner.

Pictures from: http://peterfuss.com/achtung/index.html

Translated by Małgorzata Głombiowska