Exhibit B: Victim Of Mob Censorship Or Vile History Used As Entertainment?

James Drury
By James Drury Last edited 46 months ago
Exhibit B: Victim Of Mob Censorship Or Vile History Used As Entertainment?

Photo: Sofie Knijff

Protestors have forced the cancellation of the Barbican's latest show, Exhibit B, which has been branded "racist" by those opposing it.

The withdrawal of the work has polarised opinion — some taking delight at the effectiveness of the protest, while others decry what they feel is censorship by a vocal group of protesters.

Screen Shot 2014-09-24 at 12.53.48

Screen Shot 2014-09-24 at 12.54.13

The work by South African artist Brett Bailey was to portray black actors in chains and cages in recreations of the "human zoos" which were an appalling feature of European 19th century history that saw public exhibitions of people, often kidnapped from Africa.

Over 23,000 people signed a petition to have the performance shut down, and many gathered outside the Barbican Centre last night to protest. Police were called, but no arrests were made.

The Barbican says it was the "extreme" nature of these protests that led it to cancel the event.

In a statement, the centre says:

"We find it profoundly troubling that such methods have been used to silence artists and performers and that audiences have been denied the opportunity to see this important work.

"Exhibit B raises, in a serious and responsible manner, issues about racism; it has previously been shown in 12 cities, involved 150 performers and been seen by around 25,000 people with the responses from participants, audiences and critics alike being overwhelmingly positive."

The statement continues: "We believe this piece should be shown in London and are disturbed at the potential implications this silencing of artists and performers has for freedom of expression.”

This is a powerful argument. At what point did London — one of the most proudly cosmopolitan and liberal cities in the world — become a place where we can't have a sensible debate about a horrifying yet true part of European history?

As The Guardian's Lyn Gardner says in her review of the performance when it was staged at Edinburgh in August:

"Confronting us with the appalling realities of Europe's colonial past – the stuff I definitely wasn't taught at school – isn't just some kind of guilt trip. It reminds us that most history is hidden from view; it reminds that Britain's 21st-century ways of seeing are still strongly skewed by 18th-, 19th- and 20th-century colonial attitudes."

And yet, equally compelling, is the argument that exhibitions such as this reinforce negative opinions of black people by dredging up such events and using them voyeuristically.

As Sara Myers, who's behind the Boycott The Human Zoo campaign says:

"Exhibit B recreates, in graphic detail, the lesser known atrocities of colonialism and slavery. Bailey, a white South African, uses black performers to present his fetishized interpretation of the African Holocaust. Images of the exhibition have sent shock waves through the Black community and beyond."

In fact, the actors who performed in the work when it was staged at the Edinburgh Festival responded to criticisms of racism in this article in The Guardian, which is worth reading before coming to a conclusion.

Perhaps more important than the immediate argument, Julia Farrington of the Index on Censorship raises a crucial point in a comment piece that ethnic minorities are not fairly represented by UK arts institutions, whether through a lack of programming or via overwhelmingly white senior management.

It's a point The Barbican concedes. In a previous statement, it says:

"We recognise that the Barbican Centre, in common with many arts organisations, is not represented at both management and Board level by a diversity that reflects London today. We agree that more needs to be done and this is an issue which we are addressing.

"In conclusion, we accept that the presentation of Exhibit B has raised significant issues and undertake to explore these further. But we cannot accept that the views expressed, however strongly felt, should be a reason to cancel the performances.

What do you think? Is this a case of censorship by mob, or a legitimate protest by people who are insulted at their history being used for entertainment? Let us know in the comments below.

Last Updated 24 September 2014


First of all stop calling peaceful protesters a mob! We're the climate change protesters a mob?? The police were arranged to be there as it was an official protest. And the Barbican's slander that safety is the reason that the Human Zoo has been cancelled is a complete lie. Yes the protest was loud - its was loud on purpose in response to the silenced statuesque black bodies being used on stage. The Barbican attended a public panel discussion on Monday where Louise Jeffreys admitted that they didnt hold any consultation with groups within the black community because she doesnt know who the black community is. That is exactly what she said. She didnt research the many groups such as African Heritage groups or anti racist groups. That was irresponsible.
And the root cause of the problem at the Barbican decision to host this offensive and racist show.

Lindy Williamson

Isn't it just hiding a horrible truth to have it taken down?

Paul Lawrence

We tried to have dialogue with the Barbican. The insulted our knowledge of art and consistently stated that this was supposed to be educational. Yet could not state how a show accessible to only 750 people at a cost of £20 per ticket was an education.

Our history is not entertainment.

Andy Brice

Maybe this is a good way of enlightening people to shameful aspects of our history. Or maybe it's a crass, insensitive exercise in publicity-seeking through controversy.

Either way, if you find a work contemptible or offensive… You can boycott it. You can protest about it. You can tell its creators how you feel. You can create your own work that criticises it. But what you shouldn't be able to do is censor it.


Many of the best cultural and media products raise sensitive issues that may cause offence - there is no right not to be offended. Despite this, censorship and prudishness are increasingly the driving force of political campaigns. It is highly regrettable the Barbican felt unable to continue with this exhibition.


Thanks James for a nicely balanced article. I would actually categorise the cancellation of the performance as a loss to both sides.

I've not seen the production so can't comment on whether it's racist or a sobering reminder of a historical past that's been forgotten by many.

What's clear to me is that there are intelligent people from varying ethnic backgrounds on both sides of the argument. Voices from both sides have been heard in the press and that's great, because they should be on this clearly divisive subject.

London is a multicultural and liberal place, where people should feel comfortable to have varying beliefs and to express their opinions.

What saddens me is that rather than letting this debate run its course, the production has been cancelled and in my mind that's a thumb in the eye for freedom of expression.

The arts often present challenging topics and I may find some of it offensive or distasteful, and I may even be motivated to protest against it, but I wouldn't consider the event being cancelled and the denial of freedom of expression a victory.


As a black Jamaican (ie, a descendant of the slaves depicted in this exhibition) I am deeply saddened and irritated that it has been shut down. My father (also a black Jamaican) was nearby when the protests were taking place and the protesters repeatedly implored him to join, using peer pressure and implied guilt. He responded that they were talking nonsense, and asked if any of them had actually seen the exhibition. None of them had. Right. He asked one if they would protest, say, 12 Years a Slave or Amistad. No answer.

Censoring art in this manner sets a dangerous precedent. Do better, black people.