British artist Matthew Collings. Photo: Screenshot

Art has always been intrinsically political. Its power lies partly in its ability to challenge convention, provoke discomfort, and shape how people understand the world. But that same power can also reinforce prejudice. 

Every artist should have the freedom to explore and communicate their ideas, however unconventional or provocative they may be. But when artistic expression draws upon entrenched racial stereotypes, one must question: When does provocative political art stop challenging power and start reproducing hatred?

This is especially poignant to consider following “Drawings Against Genocide,” a March 2026 exhibition by British artist Matthew Collings at Joseph Wales Studios in Margate.  

Several works in Collings’ exhibition depict Jewish figures through grotesque, antisemitic caricatures. Equally contentious are works disputing sexual violence reported during the Oct. 7 attacks. Collectively, these depictions wrongfully suggest that Israel fabricated or manipulated evidence of atrocities to legitimize its subsequent military campaign in Gaza. Such representations raise important questions about the distinction between legitimate scrutiny of wartime reporting and the dismissal of documented suffering. 

The imagery bears striking similarities to antisemitic propaganda circulated in Nazi Germany, evoking much older prejudices, including the blood libel: the historically fabricated accusation that Jews murder non-Jewish children for ritual purposes. Such allegations have contributed to the persecution of Jewish communities for centuries. 

The controversy also fits a larger pattern. In 2019, Collings was suspended as a Labour parliamentary candidate after controversy over his response to antisemitism allegations and remarks about former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Although it is important to distinguish his previous conduct from the question of how individual works in the exhibition should be interpreted, it inevitably raises questions about the extent to which the exhibition’s stated focus on Israel can be separated from its representations of Jewish people. 

Extending beyond the artworks themselves, this exhibition has been belligerent in more ways than one. Journalist Zoe Strimpel, who attended the exhibition, described an aggressive confrontation with Collings after challenging him over what she considered the antisemitic nature of his work. She subsequently described the exhibition as an “insane fever dream” and reported that the police had informed her that no further action would be taken. 

Yet unfortunately, this discourse is not confined to Britain. Similar imagery has appeared elsewhere, including a March 2026 Toronto protest where demonstrators displayed rats entering a hole shaped like a Star of David. 

Israeli Chargée d’Affaires Daniela Grudsky responded to the controversy by stating: “This isn’t art. It isn’t free speech. It’s antisemitism.” Her words encapsulate the tensions of this debate: the extent to which artistic expression can invoke the protection of creative freedom when its content is perceived to perpetuate hatred.

To appreciate art is not simply to celebrate its capacity for beauty, innovation, or controversy — but also to recognize its potential to influence social attitudes and perpetuate historical injustices. If we are willing to celebrate art for its ability to challenge convention, audiences must also be willing to criticize it when it appears to reproduce the very prejudices that society has sought to overcome.

Consciously engaging with art means examining not only its beauty and originality but also the quality of the ideas it transmits. Defending artistic freedom does not require silence in the face of prejudice. Perhaps the real measure of that freedom is reciprocal: Artists must be free to challenge society, and society must remain equally free to challenge the art.

The work has been reproduced multiple times, but an exhibition planned for May 2026 at Delta House Studios, was canceled because of all the claims of antisemitism surrounding this exhibit.

In response to the cancellation of the second revival, artist Matthew Collings spoke to Al Jazeera suggesting that his work was merely anti-Zionist and not antisemitic, but his defense left the actual bigotry of the imagery unexplained. And many disagree with him.

The cancellation of this exhibit is not an impingement on freedom of expression but an active consequence of the perpetuation of hatred in public spaces. It has been continued for two further exhibitions since, with little care towards the people it harms. Having a public platform should not equal careless expression. Just as the arts have an extensive power to create meaningful discourse, we need to hold one another accountable to use this tool for promotion of peace rather than hatred. 

Sadie Blakeley is a fourth-year History of Art and French university student and a CAMERA Fellow. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CAMERA.