This NY Times article written by Motoko Rich is made up by the information pieces painstakingly collected to fit the “Korea vs Japan” narrative. As a result, it fails to provide enough information for readers to make up their mind on the issue. I mean the article is misguiding.
There are at least two other works in the exhibit "After ‘Freedom of Expression?" which were hugely controversial. One involves the portrait photo of a person who appears to be Hirohito burned. The other appears to insult those who died in the WWII. The article mentions neither.
Hiroki Azuma, who recently resigned as the Triennale adviser, said, “From what I see, the main reason the exhibit "After ‘Freedom of Expression?" was cancelled is not the pressure from politicians or threats from terrorists (though surely they were there), but the general public's wide-spread objection in relation to the work that involves the Emperor."
He also said, "The main issues, in my view, are ‘(art works) becoming involved in diplomatic issues‘ and ‘lack of explanation to the public. The statue of a comfort woman has been politically taken advantage of by politicians and media (including foreign media). In relation to the work involving the Emperor, radical expression shocked many citizens.”
You can read more of Azuma’s tweets in relation to the issue here. (in Japanese)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jp/ryosukekamba/azuma
The irony of this whole Triennale saga is that Daisuke Tsuda, the artistic director of the event, has been one of the main drivers of the cancel culture of the left on what they perceive as "wrong" opinions.
