In Whistler v Ruskin, the two men had a lawsuit because they disagreed on what was or wasn’t considered modern art. In Arab Spring, it was mentioned that modern Arab art wasn’t even considered a real thing until relatively recently. These differences realistically show how two places in the world can have complete opposite reactions to certain art movements. I’d also like to point out how the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control had to get involved when artist Ahmad Aali lent his self-portrait to an exhibition in New York. Personally, I found all of this extremely surprising. The fact that there was a lawsuit over art is kind of comical, and the fact that the government had to get involved when an American exhibit wanted to show an Iranian work is also pretty strange. It just goes to show that the way one place sees a certain thing is not always the same way another place sees it.
Whistler v Ruskin
Arab Spring: Middle East Artists find new audience in the West