This is​ a story about two bad boys. One, Julian Assange, has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than three years. The other, the artist Ai Weiwei, has done his time in detention too – nearly three months’ solitary confinement in 2011 in an undisclosed location in Beijing. They’re friends: last year, while Ai was over for his big show at the Royal Academy, they posted a joint selfie on Instagram, both sticking a finger up to the Man. There’s comradeship between celebrity dissidents. Sometimes this is practical: Sarah Harrison, Assange’s right-hand woman, flew to Sheremetyevo airport to help navigate Edward Snowden safely and legally into Moscow and get him a residency permit after his leaks broke in the summer of 2013. Sometimes it’s more nebulous: outlaws bond, as we know from the movies, and in any case stars – out of reach and incomprehensible to humans – have a better time with each other than with ordinary mortals. After all, you appreciate, they can compare experiences the rest of the world will never understand.

I have no beef with the friendship, if that’s what it is. But I don’t really know if that is what it is – all I have to go on is an Instagram picture, and WikiLeaks’s three million followers, some of whom tweeted to applaud their expression of solidarity. I am, I realise, not unlike a reader of the Sun, who gets snapshot reports of the doings of the famous through possibly planted stories about who’s getting it on with whom. Like a Sun reader, I’m not stupid: I know that not everything I read is true, but I also know that celestial bodies are bodies all the same, and it’s good to have them brought down to earth. Yet I also know that there’s something weird about celebrating the very visible fame – the singularity – of people whose mission it is to protest injustices that affect large sections of the world’s population: in Assange’s case, for instance, the publication of the military logs on the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; in Ai’s, the documentation of repressive and destructive acts by the Chinese state. You can’t help becoming famous if you do famous deeds. The trouble comes when there’s a confusion about what exactly should be celebrated: the doer or the done.

Last week, Ai, who recently opened a studio on Lesbos in solidarity with those landing on the shore, issued a photograph of himself on one of the island’s beaches. It’s black and white and arty, and Instagram-square, and he’s lying on his stomach on the stones in imitation of the body of Aylan Kurdi, the dead three-year-old Syrian boy whose image seemed to catalyse the campaign of sympathy for refugees from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere last year. Ai is a great bear of a man, and he looks as little like a three-year-old boy as it’s possible to look. Unlike the image it’s modelled on, it’s nice, and totally boring to look at. But – as with Aylan Kurdi – you can’t get away from the body.

Ai’s Royal Academy exhibition, which Brian Dillon wrote about in the LRB of 8 October 2015, was – to me – a confusing combination of the documentary (records of the children killed by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake), and the bigging-up of this already big artist himself: this vast, shaggy man who in three life-size freeze-frame shots drops a Han dynasty vase so that it shatters; who in a video clip excitedly chases his small child round the studio the authorities built for him before Beijing changed its mind and demolished it (he celebrated by inviting supporters to a dinner of river crabs, a dinner he commemorated at the RA by commissioning a few thousand porcelain crustaceans). Dillon and others suggested all this was a tribute to Duchamp and his readymades, but all I could see was Ai, and his bearishly huggable self.

These were, more than anything else, performance pieces, pieces about the artist, especially in the last big room, which compellingly arrayed a series of 3D dioramas representing Ai’s 81-day imprisonment at a scale of 2:1: wax models of a miniature Ai being monitored by green-clad guards – you climbed up steps (following an excited queue) to peer in at him being interrogated, eating, sleeping, having a shower, sitting on the toilet. The man himself, demanding to be looked at: the installation seemed to be meant – unsettlingly – to cast the viewer in the role of the all-seeing prison guard, policing every moment of a detainee’s confinement. But that wasn’t what looking at it was like at all. You had the pleasingly sociable experience of smiling at other impatient gallery-goers as you each waited your turn to get a glimpse through the spyholes into the little big man’s life. You were happily paying the price of a ticket for rare snapshots into what it was really like to be Ai, at that famous time, when he was arbitrarily detained for inciting subversion. It’s easy to see why this is confusing. One reason Ai Weiwei isn’t Lenin is that Lenin didn’t build his own mausoleum.

In its early days, when it began releasing information that governments would rather had been kept secret, WikiLeaks was a faceless organisation, staffed – we could assume – by an army of anonymous volunteers. Gradually, of course, it came to be represented by a single face: the striking, ghostly one of Julian Assange. It wasn’t Assange’s fault that – in 2010, not long after he released the video he called Collateral Murder, showing US Apache helicopters firing on unarmed civilians in Baghdad – the world wanted to know who he was. It isn’t Assange’s fault that he needs to keep himself close to the surface of the news: he has been inside the same building for – the counter on WikiLeaks currently reads – 1886 days and nights, and, like Scheherazade, if he doesn’t keep telling stories, he’ll disappear. But the phenomenon that was WikiLeaks depended on facelessness and anonymity. Not only for pragmatic reasons – leakers and whistleblowers have to be allowed the security of invisibility if they are to risk releasing dangerous secrets – but for reasons, too, of effective dissent.

Information that appears online contextlessly, suddenly, without warning, great masses of it, with no author or attribution and no clue about how many thousands of secret documents the next day will bring, is a great affront to power. The next leaker could be anywhere, or anyone, or everyone. For years – since 1996, still the early days of the world wide web – a site,, has been quietly humming away, publishing endless revealing secret documents (or at least not necessarily public documents) from sources of all kinds, often several times a week. Cryptome isn’t entirely faceless: it’s run by a man called John Young, a Vietnam-era radical and a practising architect in New York, now in his eighties. But he’s a cantankerous repeller of journalists and keeps himself to himself. And the website – plain red links on a white page – is the model of the way a secret-leaking outfit should operate. Or of the way I’d like it to operate: since barely anyone has actually heard of Cryptome, perhaps a bit of celebrity endorsement is necessary if word is to get around.

Assange takes care to manage – or tries to manage – the stories about him. He needs to, because there are a lot of them about, not all of them fair: the sexual predator, the prima donna, the egotist, the reckless betrayer. And, after all, when he ran out of secrets, his image was all he had left. Since he first exploded into view, those in the secret-disclosing business who are sticking it to the Man have understood that once you’ve burned up those secrets, you’re faced with a choice. Either you go supernova, like Snowden, or – like Assange – you turn into a black hole.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 38 No. 6 · 17 March 2016

Daniel Soar draws a comparison between the ‘celebrity dissidents’ Ai Weiwei and Julian Assange, and includes a reference to Ai Weiwei’s photograph of himself in the pose of Aylan Kurdi (LRB, 18 February). But the image is grotesque. Ai Weiwei’s art has until now seemed merely inconsequential, narcissistic: geegaws for the boudoirs of the international elite, luxury objects with a dusting of conceptualism and a way of saying nothing much in the most expensive way possible. He has for a long time been the darling of a certain sector of the commentariat in parts of the West, his celebrity intertwined with a specific set of neuroses: the paranoid Orientalist fetishism of the rising Dragon of the East which comes coupled to a tribal loathing of ‘communism’ and a need to seek out its antagonists. Ai Weiwei certainly appears to have done better than many of his fellow dissidents. This may be because beneath the surface of his work armies of anonymous fabricators are ironised out of existence in a manner exactly in keeping with the rank exploitation of the vast majority of the domestic Chinese labour force. Thus he partakes in the technical definition of communism as pursued by the PRC, itself not unlike the mechanism of industrial capitalism.

However, the photograph is a new low. Not only is it a repugnant appropriation of a real and wretched death in the service of his own celebrity, it displays a misapprehension both of the mass media and of his moral position within it. The image of the drowned child was, for better or worse, globalised overnight. It cannot be ‘reclaimed’ in the way Ai Weiwei seems to intend, only further exploited. Perhaps he should go all the way and have his team rustle him up a mountain of ceramic life jackets so that he can be lionised anew at the next Biennale.

There is a consuming emptiness here, and it is not dissimilar to the emptiness at the heart of Julian Assange’s bizarre story, which is what makes Daniel Soar’s comparison so interesting. What does anyone today recall about WikiLeaks except that frail, geekish and smug figure with the silver mane, those little eyes glittering in the light of a thousand flashbulbs? None of it came together to reframe our understanding of anything, nor did it have any emancipatory effect. In a curious way the WikiLeaks material seemed to shore up the very hierarchy that it purported to undermine, by reiterating its circuitous inner conflicts. Faceless bureaucrats and state operatives were suddenly humanised, revealed as being as bad-tempered and inefficient and bitchy as would have seemed likely to anyone who had previously felt the need to imagine what they were like. And yet just as Ai Weiwei floated his stock ever higher on the forgotten efforts of his craftspeople, Assange built a spurious messianism upon his revelations of nothing while Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was pinned to the wall for making Assange’s heroism possible.

Vaughan Pilikian
London E14

The river crabs served up by Ai Weiwei in ‘celebration’ of the demolition of his government-built studio and their subsequent ceramic reincarnation at a Royal Academy dinner commemorating the event are not, of course, your common or garden crustacean but loaded symbols of resistance to the heavy censorship imposed on the internet by Beijing. The authorities claim censorship is justified in order to maintain the much vaunted ‘harmonious society’, even to the extent of banning any mention of the word itself online. To get round this, Chinese netizens use the two Chinese characters for ‘river crab’ (he xie), which have almost the same pronunciation as the two different characters for ‘harmonious’, thus referring to whatever has been censored as having been ‘river-crabbed’.

Duncan Hunter
Hong Kong

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences