Response to Exhibit B

I first heard about the issues surrounding Exhibit B on the radio, a few days after it was supposed to open, with someone involved in the event was re-telling their experience with the protesters. I'm not 100% sure on where I stand with the entire debate over Exhibit B, however, I feel that as soon as we start censoring art - we begin to tread in a extremely dangerous territory. This article from the Guardian is a debate between one of the artists, Stella Odunlami, and a protester Dr Kehinde Andrews  - I found this really interesting to read as it gave me a chance to hear the different arguments from the two sides of this issue. However, I feel the protester's point was hindered by the fact that they hadn't actually experienced the exhibit themselves and was going off reviews and accounts of the exhibition to create their argument. Though I agree with Andrews' point "If we can’t campaign against things we haven’t experienced there would be no social movements." as I am extremely passionate about different worldwide social issues, I feel that with this specific situation, as it's protesting against an event rather than an idea, experiencing it yourself before making a judgement is imperative. I feel like they are protesting the idea of using real life people rather than the actual exhibition itself - this then poses the questoin, what if it was developed into a theatre piece? would it still be classed as racist?. Whereas Odunlami feels that the exhibition not only exposes racism of the past, but as the present as well. As an actor and artist, I feel I may be biased towards Odunlami as I have a strong belief that art shouldn't be censored and that we should tackle the hard and controversial issues in creative ways. 

This debate also touches on the idea of censor-shipping art, and although Andrews claims that "This is not a discussion about censorship, but about racism, what it is and who has the power to define it.", I feel that by cancelling an exhibit due to it's content, without experiencing it, is a definite indirect form of censorship. Andrews' quotes that it's "about racism, what it is and who has the power to define it", which then poses the question; are the protesters really allowed to accuse it of being racist, and do they have the power and the means to define it as such? I will never agree with silencing protesting voices or the censorship of art, and with this particular issue I feel that with what ever conclusion you come to - someone will always be offended and disagree.