WELLINGTON – A New Zealand flag printed with the phrases “please stroll on me” and laid on the ground of an artwork gallery has as soon as once more been packed away following public outcry, 30 years after protests compelled the elimination of the identical art work.
The Suter Artwork Gallery within the metropolis of Nelson mentioned Thursday it had taken down the work by Māori artist Diane Prince attributable to escalating tensions and security fears. The episode mirrored an Auckland gallery’s elimination of the work amid public backlash and complaints to legislation enforcement in 1995.
This time, the flag was meant to stay on show for 5 months. As an alternative, it lasted simply 19 days, reigniting long-running debates in New Zealand over inventive expression, nationwide symbols and the nation’s colonial historical past.
Police advised The Related Press on Friday that officers have been investigating “a number of” complaints concerning the exhibition.
What’s the art work?
The piece, titled Flagging the Future, is a material New Zealand flag displayed on the ground with the phrases “please stroll on me” stenciled throughout it. The flag options the British Union Jack and crimson stars on a blue background.
The work was a part of an exhibition, Diane Prince: Activist Artist, and was meant to impress reflection on the Māori expertise since New Zealand’s colonization by Britain within the nineteenth century. Prince created the piece in 1995 in response to a authorities coverage that restricted compensation to Māori tribes for historic land theft.
“I’ve no attachment to the New Zealand flag,” Prince advised Radio New Zealand in 2024. “I don’t name myself a New Zealander. I name myself a Māori.”
Prince couldn’t be reached instantly for remark Friday.
New Zealand’s reckoning with its colonial past has gathered tempo in current many years. However there was little urge for food amongst successive governments to sever the nation’s remaining constitutional ties to Britain or change the flag to a design that does not function the Union Jack.
Why did the artwork strike a nerve?
New Zealand is amongst nations the place desecrating the nationwide flag is taken into account taboo and prohibited by legislation. Damaging a flag in public with intent to dishonor it’s punishable by a tremendous of as much as 5,000 New Zealand {dollars} ($2,984), however prosecutions are fleetingly uncommon.
As within the United States and elsewhere, the nation’s flag is synonymous for some with navy service. However for others, notably some Māori, it’s a reminder of land dispossession, and lack of tradition and id.
Protests of the art work within the metropolis of Nelson, inhabitants 55,000, included movies posted to social media by an area lady, Ruth Tipu, whose grandfather served within the military’s Māori Battalion throughout World Conflict II. In a single clip, she is seen lifting the flag from the ground and draping it over one other art work, an motion Tipu mentioned she would repeat each day.
A veterans’ group additionally denounced the piece as “shameful” and “offensive.” Metropolis council member Tim Skinner mentioned he was “horrified” by the work’s inclusion.
However others welcomed it. Nelson’s deputy mayor, Rohan O’Neill-Stevens, posted on social media “in robust protection of inventive expression and the best for us all to be challenged and confronted by artwork.”
Why did the gallery take away it?
The work was maybe anticipated to impress controversy and within the exhibition’s opening days, The Suter Gallery defended its inclusion. However an announcement on its Fb web page late Thursday mentioned a “sharp escalation within the tone and nature of the discourse, transferring nicely past the bounds of respectful debate” had prompted the flag’s elimination.
“This shouldn’t be interpreted as a judgement on the art work or the artist’s intent,” the assertion mentioned. The gallery didn’t element particular incidents of concern and a gallery spokesperson didn’t reply to a request for an interview on Friday.
New Zealand’s Police mentioned in an announcement Friday that whereas officers have been investigating complaints, they weren’t referred to as to any disturbances on the exhibition. Prince mentioned when she revived the work in 2024 that threats of prosecution by legislation enforcement had prompted its elimination from the Auckland gallery in 1995.
The Nelson gallery did not counsel in its assertion that police involvement had influenced Thursday’s resolution.
Copyright 2025 The Related Press. All rights reserved. This materials will not be printed, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed with out permission.
