On 30 October 2009 Indeks 73 received a letter from Ewa Majewska informing about the acts of censorship performed by Jakub Banasiak and Adam Mazur in “Obieg”. The letter analyses the reasons for refusing to publish Majewska's article "Ponowoczesna kontrola w społeczeństwie obrazu. Na marginesie wystawy Jacqueline Livingston" (Postmodern Control in the Society of Image. Reflections on Jacqueline Livingston' exhibition) on the “Obieg” website. As a result of the conflict Adam Mazur decided to terminate his cooperation with Ewa Majewska. Her letter reveals undemocratic mechanisms of decision making and administration in “Obieg” and contributes to the debate on the necessity of the reforms in Polish cultural institutions.

“Obieg”, published by Zamek Ujazdowski Centre for Contemporary Art, is the biggest public platform for discussing contemporary art in Poland." Ewa Majewska's case is not only a private conflict with the “Obieg” editors, but is part of a bigger debate concerning democratic decision making and programme planning in Polish public institutions. Other cases include Ryszard Ziarkiewicz's dismissal from the Museum in Koszalin and controversial directors' nominations in Cracow cultural institutions.


Ewa Majewska: How does censorship in Obieg work? In a manly and unceremonious way. Summary

This is an attempt to answer the question how censorship works, to reconstruct events and present arguments, and also to indicate the consequences of the conflict for both parties involved.
All reconstructions of censorship acts may seem to be quite long and boring, and so is this one, yet the process of the publication control and its social functioning is quite a complex issue.

In the context of the whole reconstruction of the conflict Majewska is particularly interested in a relationship between an individual and a public institution. Magazine “Obieg” is formally an organ of Zamek Ujazdowski Centre for Contemporary Art, a public institution, yet some “Obieg” projects are implemented and financed by an association or fundation – Majewska is not sure about its formal status – called “40 000 malarzy” (40,000 painters).

Another interesting issue for Majewska is work quality of editorial staff of a cultural magazine – the question is if quality journalism is really a standard here and to what extent a person in charge can make individual decisions concerning the magazine, which is at least partly financed with the public money and affiliated with the appreciated public institution.

Last but not least, Majewska asks how far one can go in the conflict with an author. She admits she was accused of supporting sexual criminals and being a paedophile herself.

The author feels that Kuba Banasiak and Adam Mazur representing “Obieg” are responsible for doing her harm (her cooperation with “Obieg” was urgently terminated with no goodbyes and thank-yous, all accussations were maintained, and all blame put on her).
In her reconstruction Majewska wants to find out how her actions might be (mis)interpreted by others and learn the lesson for the future.
American photographer Jacqueline Livingston visited Poland in April 2009. Livingston is an artist famous for her feminist images of family and intimacy, she has been always a big fan of nudity. She has taken pictures of herself and her family since the 1960s. Her works present very physical and intimate situations. In the mid-70s Livingston became a victim of the media and court persecution as a result of her exhibition in which she showed the picture of her son playing with his penis. She was dismissed from work at Cornell University, taken to court on charges concerning paedophile (she won) and parental rights (she won).

Majewska was invited to give a lecture during the seminar accompanying the artist's exhibition in Gdansk. Her article, updated with the information on the legal status of presenting children's sexuality in Poland, was submitted to Adam Mazur, editor of “Obieg” in August 2009. (The article can be read now on the “Artmix” website thanks to Iza Kowalczyk and Edyta Zierkiewicz).

After a long silence, Majewska contacted the editors, only to hear from Kuba Banasiak that her article would have to be seriously edited to be published in “Obieg” or would not be published there at all. (Majewska points out Banasiak is not an expert on art history, theory of philosophy, feminism or children's sexuality. She feels he hasn't got experience in editorial work and communication, either). In response to her complaint Majewska was accused of supporting sexual criminals and paedophiles in Banasiak's “review”, which was based on arguments and thesis taken out of their context from Majewska's article.

For the last 10 years Ewa Majewska has worked for the rights of minorities, cooperated with teachers, instructors and psychologists to create a common strategy against sexual abuse of teenagers. She did training in the La Strada Foundation (an advisory centre on the issue of trafficing women), worked on the Amnesty International Polska report on domestic violence, worked in the feminist library of the Ośka Foundation, did numerous workshops on sexual abuse for women, students and teenage girls. She has also worked for the Polish Government Plenipotentiary for the Equal Status of Men and Women and combated against sexual abuse in her professional and private undertakings. This explains why she felt so offended and hurt with unfair accusations, which, she was threatened, were supposed to appear next to her article in the editor's commentary.

Majewska waited to be apologised, meanwhile “Obieg”, with which she had cooperated since 2004, terminated this cooperation. The author asked Indeks 73 for support and advice. Adam Mazur, who was probably informed that the conflict wasn't kept secret, sent - what Majewska calls - “The declaration of sentiments” to defend his attitude and express willingness to reach a compromise. However, his letter does not refer to the continuation of the mutual cooperation or publishing the censored article. As much Ewa Majewska is open to come to an agreement, she also feels hurt and wants her needs to be take into account, too. Therefore she wants the “public opinion” to be informed and share their opinions on the conflict.


Adam Mazur: Alleged censorship in “Obieg”. Summary

Ewa Majewska cooperated with “Obieg” since 2004. Her letter on the Indeks 73 website reveals the circumstances of the conflict from her point of view and requires to be completed with the reconstruction made by the “Obieg” editorial staff.
The most serious issue in Majewska's letter is accusation concerning censorship in “Obieg”, especially in the context of recent news about Ziarkiewicz's dismissal and stories about the Museum for Contemporary Art in Cracow. The article submitted by Majewska has been published on the “Obieg” website for two weeks, in the “Artmix” section.

If the “Obieg” editors were censors, as Majewska would like to present them, the text could be removed instantly, but it is and will be on the “Obieg” website as long as the magazine exists, because it is a good and valuable article.

Adam Mazur, who is “Obieg” editor-in-chief, feels really sorry he let the conflict escalate. He explains why he took Banasiak's side in the conflict.

Majewska's article was submitted in summer 2009 and, initially, it was supposed to be edited by Ewa Tatar, then Adam Mazur, yet due to their other work commitments the text ended up on Kuba Banasiak's table. The editor started to question the merits and arguments of the article, which very easily led to escalation of the conflict (especially when taking into account Majewska's and Banasiak's quick-tempered personalities). Gradually, Majewska started to send emails only to Mazur, expressed her discontent with cooperation with Banasiak and suggested dismissing him from the magazine. Then Mazur decided to end the whole conflict by terminating his cooperation with Majewska. Mazur emphasises his decision wasn't based on his lack of respect for Majewska's intellect and skills, but on the general policy of the “Obieg” magazine to terminate cooperation in the case of playing secret games and conspiring against fellow workers. Mazur feels sorry Ewa Majewska depreciates arguments of their opponent and uses the form of denunciation in her contacts with the magazine editorial staff. He is also surprised his genuine apologies were treated as an attempt to “save his hide” and rejected.

Mazur objects to Majewska's insinuations that “Obieg” is Banasiak's private magazine and explains the role of the “40 000 Malarzy” Association (the 40,000 Painters Association) and its relationship with “Obieg”. Basically, the association helps to acquire funds for paying the “Obieg” authors' fees, which is easier to do for an NGO than a public institution with a limited budget, such as Zamek Ujazdowski. Ewa Majewska should be aware of this fact and understand these attempts to develop the magazine. Mazur underlines that the “Obieg” editorial staff represents a wide spectrum of personalities and outlooks on life, which is inspiring rather than disturbing. As it turns out, the decision to terminate cooperation with Ewa Majewska is based not on her lack of competence, but too difficult personality. Is it “censorship”?
It's dangerous to juxtapose Majewska's denunciation of “Obieg” and recent cases concerning Ryszard Ziarkiewicz's dismissal from the Museum in Koszalin and the directors' nominations in Cracow cultural institutions. Especially, “Obieg” supported Ziarkiewicz and published the letter with signatures. Majewska's statement weakens and ridicules the reform of public institutions even before it actually started.
Mazur apologises again for the mistakes he made in the conflict, however, he states Majewska's letter confirmed him in the conviction it was right to go separate ways.

Source: http://obieg.pl/felieton/14748